JUST PUTTING IT OUT THERE:OUR END OF MONTH CATCHUP!

So it's the last day of May and it's catchup time. Who's done what, and what's happened from it.

For those reading about it for the first time, the original post can be read here and you can join the Facebook and Myspace groups, just click on the bits in my sidebar.

Well let's see, this month, as every other month, I sent out more submissions for my book, again some have said No, but I'm still waiting on others. I've sent more to the UK too.

Still writing in my journal and looking at my affirmation folder.

Got back into writing to Ellen Degeneres everday on Facebook to join the FB group, but no luck. But if you guys want to join, click here

I'm considering doing a hunk of the month, just to help please the ladies of Bitchfest, so if you've got a gorgeous studly actor, singer, host, etc looking really hot and sexy, let me know here, or send a pic to jewelsd@ymail.com

Tomorrow will be affirmation day peeps, don't forget to tune in.

Jewels xxoo

SEX! WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT AND SHOULD YOU BE PUNISHED FOR IT?

Many a year ago, I did a retail sales course. And during that course we did some sort of yes or no exercise where you had to move to the opposite side of the room if you said no to the question you were asked.

Now one of these questions was - should a man go to jail if he knows he has Aids and infects women by sleeping with them without a condom. Or something like that. Everyone said no and crossed the floor.

Except me.

Who still has exactly the same answer and reason today -- after being rudely shouted at and told I was wrong by just about everyone -- 17 years later.

This year there's been a quite a few stories about men willingly infecting women.

This week there's been the circus acrobat who knowingly had sex with women without condoms.

And then there's the story about a man who pricked his sleeping wife with a needle with his blood on in it in order to infect her with the Aids virus he had.

Now that's a different story to the above question.

This woman did not willingly have sex with him, although I'm sure she would have earlier since she's his wife. She did not consent to sex in that moment. She was not even awake.

It was not her fault.

It was his.

Wholeheartedly and swear to God it was that sick bastards fault but why the hell she married an Aids-ridden man I don't know.

Anyhoo.

I still believe that a man should not go to jail for having sex with women to intentionally infect them with Aids.

''Why'', I hear you all screaming at me, thinking I'm wrong and you're right.

Why, because the women are responsible for their own health and well being.

''You have no idea,'' you all groan, shaking your hands at your pcs, ready to blast the shit out of me. And that definitely wouldn't be the first time someone's done that here at my blog.

Back to me.

I will swear until my death, that A WOMAN IS 100 % RESPONSIBLE FOR HER OWN HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELL BEING.

Meaning, if a woman CHOOSES to have sex with a man, regardless if it's a one night stand or new relationship, then SHE CHOOSES the consequences of those actions. If a woman is so desperately needy for sex, that she willing lets a man between her legs without him wearing a condom, then she will suffer the consequences. If a woman is so stupid and unthinking that she believes ''NOTHING WILL HAPPEN'' then she's as thick as a brick shithouse.

I DO NOT CARE IF A MAN WANTS TO WHINGE AND SCREAM AND CRY ABOUT THE CONDOM HURTING HIM OR NOT FITTING, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

IF IT AIN'T ON, IT AIN'T ON.

YOU ROLL THAT CONDOM ON BUDDY BOY OR YOU AIN'T GETTING BETWEEN MY LEGS. AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE CONDOMS, HOWS ABOUT I CUT YOUR DICK OFF SO YOU NEVER HAVE TO WEAR ONE AGAIN. HUH?

So, you know my reaction to a man's excuses.

Face it girls, there is no one to blame for you getting pregnant, or warts, or Aids, or some boy germ virus but yourself.

I don't care what you say, or who you want to yell and scream at, it was your choice to have sex with a guy without demanding he put a condom on, so you're just gonna have to deal with the fallout when it comes.

And it will come. Don't you worry. It will come.

So, I still believe that a man who knows he has the virus should not go to jail. He may make stupid decisions and is willing to have sex, but so do those women. They willingly have sex without protecting themselves. It's your fault if you get something.

A women is 100% responsible for her health and safety. So if you CHOOSE to have sex without making him put a condom on, all I can say is IT'S YOUR OWN FUCKING FAULT!!!!

For those of us who are Aussies, you'll remember the ads from many a year ago where you see a couple in bed making out and the voice over says something like, ''do you know who you're sleeping with. And the person they slept with before you, and the person before them'' etc,etc,etc. And the camera pulls back and you see more beds with more couples until the whole room is full.

Well, they need to run those ads again. Because they are just as relevant now as they were then.

DO YOU KNOW WHO YOU'RE SLEEPING WITH? DO YOU KNOW WHO YOUR PARTNER SLEPT WITH BEFORE YOU, AND BEFORE THEM?!?!?!?!?!?

WELL, DO YOU?

And don't start in on me about women who are raped and assaulted because that falls into a different category and you really don't want to get me started on how they're dumb enough to drive with their windows down and buttons up so any nutter can jump in and carjack them or drag them into the bushes, or how they shouldn't park in dark alleys, or get pissed off their faces so some guy can slip a drug in it, or how women don't take personal safety to the point of protection and pretty much just have a neon sign blazing across their foreheads saying ''I'm free, attack me''.

Get real people, it's 2010. Grow up and get into the new decade. Things ain't what they used to be and let me tell you this, there will never be a cure for Aids so stop trying to find it. I'm not religious, but I do believe in a higher power and if the most common name for it is God then that's what I'll call it. But I believe Aids is God's way of clearing out the population, just like Cancer and all other diseases and ''natural disasters''. You'll never find a cure. God won't let you.

A very safe and smart Jewels xxoo

QUOTE OF THE WEEK! - And that leads to serious sex shit that leads to an episode of the X Files.

Quote of the week -

DON'T HAVE SEX WITH YOUR RELATIVES. COZ YOU'LL HAVE DEFORMED BABIES. AND IT'S JUST WRONG!

INBREEDING!

Have I got your attention?

I was having a convo the other day when blood tests before marriage came up and whether you still had to get one to prove you weren't related coz God knows how many times I've heard or read stories about people going to get married and found out they were related.

Anyhoo.

It reminded me of the X Files episode that was one of the grossest and probably most disturbing I saw in the whole show. And I watched all of them until the last season when the network decided to stuff around with the time and date but then what else is new CHANNEL 10!!!!!

Season 4, episode 3, HOME.

For those who don't know about this episode, I'll give a brief recap.

A baby is found dead, and upon examining it, it's found to have several genetic disformations.

Scully and Mulder go and investigate, and find that the three Peacock brothers have the same genetic diseases and have buried several dead babies, which Scully and Mulder find in the backyard.

The Peacock brothers are so pissed off they go and kill the sheriff and his wife. Scully, Mulder and the Deputy sheriff raid the house in search of the brothers and the woman they believe is being held captive in order to be impregnated. But the brothers kill the Deputy sherriff.

Scully and Mulder let the pigs out of the pen to distract the brothers and while they're rounding up the pigs, Scully and Mulder search the house for the woman they believe his being held against her will.

At first they find no one, but a noise brings them to a bedroom where they find a severly disfigured multiple amputee strapped to a trolley under the bed. They slide her out and question her, finding that she is in fact, Mrs. Peacock, the mother of the three boys. Scully and Mulder get the hell out of there.

Turns out, the mother has been having sex with her sons and having the babies in a vain hope they will turn out normal. And when they don't, the boys kill and bury the babies.

Feeling sick yet?
The final scene of the show, shows the back of a car bouncing up and down, and then you hear the voices of the mother and one of her sons.......you can guess what they were doing......

I don't even remember what the actual reason for her being disfigured and an amputee was, it was that last scene that I remember.

I watched the X Files from the very beginning and this episode has lived with me since viewing it. It's something I haven't forgotten and repulses me, but for some reason, everytime I think of how we're all going to be related one day when you take into account sperm banks, intergenetic relationships (family members having kids with family members, or molestation/rape resulting in children) men having multiple families with multiple women, and people having no fucking idea of who they're related too, it could possibly happen.

I'm grossed out!

Are you?

I've added a couple of quick vids for you to get the general idea of the episode.

Jewels xxoo

LOL CATS WEDNESDAY!!!!!

My Favourite Things: HATS!!!!

Okay, so two weeks ago you got to see my scarves, from summer to winter with the colder months, and so now it's time for my hats. Summer is gone and so the winter hats are out to wear.

My summer hats have been packed away.

But my caps can still be worn.

And of course my sailor and velvet hats will do well. And my two newsboy caps, silver and faux fur.

Can't forget the berets, and some sequins to boot.

And here's the blues. Just need emerald and purple!

The world is full of ugly shit and here's some of it.

An elderly Melbourne man has been found guilty of the murder of his wife. Peter and Rosa Caruso had been married for half a century when he attacked her with a hatchet at their Templestowe house in July 2008.

Caruso then tried to cover up the crime by claiming his wife was attacked by an intruder.It took a jury just over four hours to find him guilty of murder. The 76-year-old sat silently next to an interpreter in the dock as the verdict was read out. His lawyer told the court it was an "inexplicable act" from an old man of previously good character who continued to visit his wife's grave. He said Caruso now faced the grim reality of dying in prison.
------------------------------------------------


An American woman will spend life in prison for killing a pregnant teenager she lured to her apartment, drugging her and cutting the child from the womb before trying to pass off the baby as her own. Andrea Curry-Demus, 40, was sentenced on Monday after a judge found the Pittsburgh-area woman guilty but mentally ill of second-degree murder in March. That carries the mandatory life sentence imposed formally on Monday.

The judge also tacked on 20 years for kidnapping.At her sentencing, Curry-Demus briefly turned around and apologised to the family of 18-year-old Kia Johnson, of McKeesport. Curry-Demus had been telling her family she was pregnant and killed Johnson and took her baby in July 2008 in an effort to continue the ruse. In finding Curry-Demus not guilty of first-degree murder in January, the judge said he wasn't satisfied that her psychotic delusions allowed her to form the intent to kill.
-----------------------------------------------

Radical Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaqi urged all Muslims serving in the US army to follow the example of Major Nidal Hasan who stands accused of killing 13 comrades, in an internet video posted on Sunday.

'What Nidal Hasan did was heroic and I call on all Muslims serving in the US army to follow his path,' Awlaqi said in a video posted by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) on jihadist websites, the US monitoring group SITE reported. 'Nidal Hasan is one of my students and I am honoured by that,' he said in the video, whose authenticity could not immediately be verified.

Hasan, a US army psychiatrist, is accused of opening fire in November on colleagues at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 people in what Awlaqi described as 'wonderful' action. Hasan, who is of Palestinian origin, was 'defending his nation' and killed American soldiers on their way to Afghanistan and Iraq, the cleric said.

The United States said on Sunday it was seeking Awlaqi. 'We are actively trying to find him and many others throughout the world that seek to do our country and to do our interests great harm,' White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. 'He has an agenda just like al-Qaeda to strike targets in Yemen, throughout the world including here in the United States,' Gibbs said on CBS's Face the Nation program.

Awlaqi also defended Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian student accused of a failed attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound passenger plane with explosives last Christmas. The operation 'was very successful even though it did not even kill anyone,' he said. 'Those who were to be killed in the plane are nothing compared to a million women and children in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan,' whom he accused the US military of having killed. 'We must treat them the same way and attack them just like they've attacked us.'

The US-born cleric in his late 30s said targeting American civilians was justified in that they 'participated in the war because they have elected this (American) government.'

US President Barack Obama's administration has authorised the targeted killing of Awlaqi, and Yemen's defence ministry said in April the authorities were tracking him for his alleged links to al-Qaeda and 'terrorist activities.'

However, Awlaqi insisted he was safe in Yemen. 'It's not true that I'm being targeted I am moving around between members of my tribe and in other parts of Yemen,' he said. 'The Yemeni people hate Americans.' To al-Qaeda, he said: 'You in al-Qaeda, your speech is that of dignity.'

During the 45-minute video, Awlaqi also accused Sanaa of collaborating with Washington to attack Yemenis. 'Yemen is not occupied by the United States. Unfortunately, the situation is worse than that,' he said. 'The Yemeni government is now telling Americans: you occupy the air and seas and we will... provide the spies on ground who spy on Yemeni Muslims.'

However, the preacher said: 'Americans cannot launch a third campaign, after Iraq and Afghanistan, because if they enter Yemen, their soldiers will be killed in our mountains, valleys and deserts.'

The Abyan region in former South Yemen has become a regrouping area for Islamist militants, including Arab veterans of the 1980s war in Afghanistan against Soviet occupation. Yemen has intensified operations against the local al-Qaeda franchise since December, with air strikes killing 34 suspected AQAP members on December 17 in an attack on an alleged training camp in Abyan.

The same number of militants were reportedly killed in another strike on December 24 which targeted a meeting of AQAP militants in Shabwa. Yemen - the ancestral homeland of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden - has been the scene of several attacks claimed by the group on foreign missions, tourist sites and oil installations.

Heroes? Role Models? What do you call them and should they be given that title?

I've heard the word hero thrown around alot. Especially in the last few years. I don't know why it gets used for inappropriate people but personally I think it shouldn't be.

"People" seem to think anyone is a hero to the young and old because of what they've done. Something that's achievable, unbelievable, heroic.

It doesn't make them heroes.

To me ambos/paramedics, firerys, cops and doctors are not heroes. They train to do those jobs and that is what they do. They don't do it for the love of fighting fires, or rescuing people, or saving their life. They do it because they want to help people and so they train for the job. It's their job. It does not make them heroes.

Sailing around the world, scoring 10 goals per game, becoming president or Prime Minister, overcoming tragedy, fighting a war does not make you a hero.

None of that is heroic.

So why the hell does the word get used so much to describe just about anyone who does anything to get them in the news and on tv?

Blowed if I know!!!!

So that comes to the second phrase "people" like to use.

Role Models.

Now I prefer this term because it does not put them on pedastals like the term hero, and yes having a role model is quite a good thing.

Even though role models can be morons like sportsmen who do drugs, have mistresses and get themselves arrested for beating up their girlfriends.

So unfortunately the term role model can be used in stupid situations.

No one chooses to be a role model.

If you love sport and choose to play it, if you want to be a cop and choose to become one, if you want to sail around the world and choose it, you're doing it for yourself because it's what you want. You do not choose it to make other people happy and give them someone to look up to.

When someone chooses what they love, it's for them. Not for anyone else. So if someone chooses to have a role model, such as a sportsman, who then completely screws up his life (pick anyone of them) then you all have a go at them because you choose to make them the role model in the first place and then decide to knock them off because you're not happy with the way they conduct their life.

Should the terms hero and role model be stopped? Should people not be put on pedastals? Should the public stop thinking these people are so fucking fantastic that they are worth looking up to and following or emulating?

There's singers I love, Pink, Kelly Clarkson, and yes I'd love to sing like them and rock out to a good song. There's model Megan Gale who I absolutely love and would love to look like. There's movies stars whose lives I'd love to have, but seriously, I'm not dumb enough to have these people as my hero, because they haven't done anything heroic. Role Models, sure. But I'll never look like Megan, or Angelina Jolie, and never have Brad Pitt or George Clooney. And in real life I'm not married to Michael Weatherly, but a girl can dream.

And dream I do. But I'm also working towards my small goals, and so far, there ain't no role model or hero around who I look up to.

If you know of someone who has the same goals, morals, life standards as you, and you know they run their life the way you run yours, then look up to them. Call them a role model. Try to emulate them in some small way, whether by living the clean life they do, power dressing like them, listening to their advice and then seeing if it's worth following. Great, just don't become obsessed, put them on a pedastal and believe they are the be all and end all. There is more to life than trying to live someone else's. And remember, the poppy that is built up can be knocked down. If the person is not worth your time then leave them behind.

Jewels xxoo

QUOTE OF THE WEEK! - and that leads to stupid shit about 3 year olds being sexual!

Quote of the week -

LET CHILDREN BE CHILDREN.

YOU CAN SEXIFY THEM WHEN THEY'RE 35!
　

This article has scored loads of ridicule this week. It's all about how pre-school kids were asked if they were a flirt and all about sex.

How fucking ridiculous!!!!

Here's some of Susie O'Brien's report -

No sex please, we're tots

HOW would you react if you found out an adult had been in your three or four-year-old's childcare centre asking the following questions:

"Do boys give you the dreamy eye?"

"Are you a flirt?"

"Have you ever kissed a boy?"

So why is it acceptable for Monash University academic Mindy Blaise to be asking three and four-year-olds these exact questions, as part of her ongoing study into what she calls post-structuralist and queer theory?

Sure, the questions come from an illustration in a popular Clarice Bean book by Lauren Child. But it doesn't make any difference. Regardless of the source, they are still inappropriate.

As she details in a paper in the latest Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, Blaise wants to show that young children are already sexual beings and that she is just creating a safe space for them in which they can express their "sexual knowledge".

In fact, she even wants the early childhood curriculum to be changed to give teachers a chance to "engage with children differently about their sexual knowledge".

In one experiment in an Australian childcare centre (she won't say which one), she gets the children to photograph objects or dolls they think are cool, sexy or pretty, and in another to respond to a photograph of two crocodiles kissing. One of the children notes that "one is a boy and one is a girl".

Blaise responds: "Heather (the child) has drawn upon the heterosexual matrix in her naming of the crocodiles as complementary genders. In doing so, the possibility of imagining same-sex desire has been closed off."

Is it just me, or does Blaise actually seem disappointed that some kids aren't showing signs of being gay?

Now I know one in 10 kids will end up being gay, and I sincerely wish them well with it. But maybe we could wait a few more years before we need to encourage them to use their own bodies and minds to challenge the "heterosexual matrix".

Now don't get me wrong. I think we need to support gay people to feel free to live life as they are. But we are not talking about teenage sex ed, we are talking about three and four-year-olds.

I would suggest to the Monash University researcher that probably none of the kids is showing signs of being straight either, other than copying the roles they see around them, which are mostly heterosexual.

These kids aren't thinking about sex. They're thinking about role play, and trying to get them to talk about sex in any form seems misguided and potentially damaging.

Blaise talks about the "myth" of childhood innocence. Now, I am not sure about childhood innocence being a myth. I think parents like me work long and hard to keep young kids from thinking (and acting) about desire and sexuality.

I have three kids, including a four-year-old girl and a six-year-old boy, and I can tell you they thankfully know precious little about sex. And that's the way I want to keep it - for a while, anyway. Sure, the kids seem aware of basic gender and relationship issues. But not in the way most adults are.

MY daughter thinks having sex is what happens when you love something, so if a kid loves muffins or the colour pink, then she'll chant out loud: "You love muffins, you want to marry muffins, you want to have muffin babies." That said, she also talks about food babies when she's had a big meal, so I am not sure she knows much about how the baby actually gets in the stomach.

The point is, kids should be kids, and research like that seems to be trying to impose an adult view of sexuality on to kids who are too young to be drilled by some researcher. In her defence, when I spoke to her yesterday, Blaise said children are already talking about gender and sexuality, and she was just using tools of the classroom like books and toys to prompt them. Yes, she had parental consent, and yes, the children's teacher - Elaine - was involved.

But in any case, I think it's totally inappropriate for a Victorian researcher to audiotape children talking about desire, sex, kissing and sexuality. And I think Blaise's queer theory research should be directed towards an older survey group.

But I can tell you one thing, as an academic researcher I wouldn't for a second be chatting with other people's kindergarten-age kids about sex, gender and sexuality. Blaise said Monash University approved the researcher's methods. It shouldn't have. Kids have plenty of time to worry about sex when they get older. If they can't be left blissfully ignorant in childhood, when can they be?

Dr Blaise notes in the article that she has "intentionally brought a topic into the preschool that adults usually ignore or shut down, rather than encourage". She's got that right. But her judgment is way off. There's a reason why adults don't want teachers or strangers to talk about these issues with young kids. It's up to us as parents to have the sex talk - when the kids are 12 - not when they are three or four. And there is absolutely no place for these topics in the early childhood curriculum.

And I completely agree. I think it's BULLSHIT that this was done to children, an absolute atrocity. What the hell do children that young know about such things.

Looking back on my childhood, colour, race and sexuality were never discussed in my household. My sisters dated guys, my brother dated girls. My parents were a normal couple, so I never had gay thoughts, hell, I never had sexual thoughts until I hit puberty coz I reckon that's when sexual feeling start happening, when the body starts feeling it.

This is just stupid, and I hope all the parents revolt. And Dr. Blaise should be shot.

Jewels xxoo

LOL CATS WEDNESDAY!!!!!